4 ms·

My anecdata, coming from SF to Japan: people seem much less stressed about getting kicked out of their homes here or having their rent raised despite no rent co

My anecdata, coming from SF to Japan: people seem much less stressed about getting kicked out of their homes here or having their rent raised despite no rent control because there is actually sufficient supply, and people aren’t depending on their house to gain value over time for their financial future (housing is generally a depreciating asset). People tend to stay in the same homes for very long periods of time, and are invested in their local communities, but you can get short term housing or move frequently if you wish (short term leases exist but to be expected, cost to value ratio isn’t great; generally 1 year minimums without penalty for long term leases with 1 month rent fee if you leave earlier, and with high fees (3-5 months rent!) when you move in, so it’s not economically encouraged to hop a lot; I personally find these high costs unreasonable, but seems to be well accepted here). Housing is generally reasonably priced; you can live within 30 mins of central Tokyo by train for less than $400/mo as a single person in an apartment (SF seems to completely lack cheap, small options for single people); but for a significantly larger premium, you can get a standalone house as well if you’d like. For me, despite living in a significantly more expensive apartment, I generally spend significantly more on going out to restaurants and stuff than my rent. I personally think that if cities really invested in transit and relaxed zoning and permitting significantly, densifying neighborhoods, that market rate can produce the best of both worlds; but that would threaten the view that housing is an investment as the cornerstone of ones financial life, so it’s unlikely to happen in a place like the US.

blackrock 6y ago
> because there is actually sufficient supply Exactly! Build more housing! Homes should be made for living. Not for investments or speculation. Why is the American public and the politicians so clueless about this? Well, because they are the landlords that benefits from all the price increases. They are the foxes guarding the hen house.
- hannasanarion 6y ago
  I think the more crucial part of the japanese example is > housing is generally a depreciating asset Housing cannot simultaneously be affordable and a good investment. In America, policymakers tend to prioritize real estate value over the ability of housing to actually house people. Homebuyers expect and demand that the values of their properties, including the rents that they generate, be constantly increasing. Supply and demand doesn't push prices down, because housing is inelastic: when you hike prices outside of people's means, they don't stop buying, they find more means, either by taking on more roommates, more jobs, or by making big cuts elsewhere in their budgets. Before the housing market was commodified and public housing looted by private interests in the 70s and 80s, spending 20% of your income on housing was considered absurdly high. Now 50% is the norm, because landlords and speculators keep raising prices and you can't not live in a house.
  - fomine3 6y ago
    I'm very curious why US housing price is still increasing despite of US' car culture and big land area.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - andromeduck 6y ago
      public transportation sucks and traffic doesn't scale well with single occupancy vehicles - at some point spending 6 hours per day in traffic just isn't worth it
    - hannasanarion 6y ago
      Private cars are a horribly inefficient way to move people. A lane of traffic can move about 1500 people per hour at most (traffic at full speed, every car totally full), in real life its more like 800 people per hour. Compare that to 10,000-25,000 people per hour on a commuter train. By focusing development around cars, American cities actually decrease the practical size of the metropolitan area.
      - blackrock 6y ago
        The problem is sitting next to an idiot on the train that refuses to wear a mask.
  - MaxBarraclough 6y ago
    > when you hike prices outside of people's means, they don't stop buying, they find more means, either by taking on more roommates, more jobs, or by making big cuts elsewhere in their budgets. Don't forget debt. I think there's a comparison to be drawn with healthcare costs here.
- maxsilver 6y ago
  > Why is the American public and the politicians so clueless about (supply vs demand) We're not clueless, but supply and demand is mostly meaningless in housing in the US. (I get that much of Hacker News is San Francisco based, and the Bay Area is an outlier in that it has an actual shortage of units). But except for a few very-specific cities (like SF), in most US cities the price of housing has absolutely nothing to do with supply nor demand. US housing prices are set by federal monetary policy, used as investment vehicles for banking and private equity, with some money laundering and scams thrown in, to create good-looking artificial economic indicators. Most housing can not depreciate in the US. This is intentional, explicit, federal policy. (Guaranteed and backed up by the full faith of the federal government). Macro-level depreciation at the urban level simply isn't allowed for any reason. (Seriously, this is not an exaggeration. We poisioned an entire cities drinking water and despite demand being practically zero, that city still hasn't lost meaningful values on it's housing). You can't build faster than the feds can raise prices, and even if you could, most cities are not short on houses. (Half of the top 40 major US cities literally already have more empty/abandoned homes than they have homeless people) If we pulled all that political monetary policy out of housing, then sure, our housing could be based on actual supply and demand (Japan-style). But politically, that will never happen in the US. Most Americans can't articulate all of the above clearly. But any American that has ever bought a house knows damn well that the price they paid is entirely political and has no basis in reality, and most Americans know that the primary way housing prices go up is through new construction, so most Americans aren't going to be swayed by an argument to "just build even more" > Homes should be made for living. Not for investments or speculation. I agree, but generally speaking, America does not. All housing is investment here. Unless your wealthy enough to DIY it yourself, houses literally don't get built here unless it's a "profitable investment". (Banks often won't even finance things that lower average housing costs) This is also why YIMBYism doesnt work here. The problem is too much investment in housing already. But new construction is assessed high, and all housing everywhere is assessed based on the closest comparable, so it becomes an infinite feedback loop until the bubble pops. You can't solve that with even more investment, the investment is causing the prices to rise in the first place!
- fomine3 6y ago
  Build more housing... then another problems pop up. Now nursery school shortage is serious problem in around Tokyo because housing regulation isn't planned well. Extremely crowded station/train is another example.
  - presentation 6y ago
    Tiny problems in comparison to the straight up human rights violations happening in the USA every day, IMO.
tkgally 6y ago
I agree with your points about Japan in general. However, one major reason “people seem much less stressed about getting kicked out of their homes here” is that there are strong laws protecting tenants from eviction [0, 1]. Landlords also cannot raise rents unilaterally [2]. My own anecdatum comes from about twenty-five years ago. I was living with my family in Tokyo in a rental condominium owned by a large corporation. The corporation tried to get us to move out so that they could sell the unit. Our children were small and I worked at home, and it would have been a major hassle to move then. I looked into the law and learned that the landlord needs a “proper reason” (正当事由 seitō jiyū, [3]) to evict a tenant and that wanting to sell the property does not count as such. I told the company’s representative that we knew our rights, and they stopped bothering us. [0] https://www.generalunion.org/laws-and-rights/1700-so-you-re-being-evicted https://www.generalunion.org/laws-and-rights/1700-so-you-re-... [1] https://japanpropertycentral.com/2017/11/landlords-ending-a-lease-is-not-easy/ https://japanpropertycentral.com/2017/11/landlords-ending-a-... [2] In Japanese: https://www.homes.co.jp/cont/rent/rent_00378/ https://www.homes.co.jp/cont/rent/rent_00378/ [3] In Japanese: https://www.mlit.go.jp/common/001017685.pdf https://www.mlit.go.jp/common/001017685.pdf
- nemothekid 6y ago
  Going off Google translate, Japan doesn't seem to be any more strict than San Francisco. To evict a "no-fault" tenant in San Francisco, it must be done in a court and the tenant gets financial recompense (and like Japan, wanting to sell the unit is not a valid reason to evict). I'd argue that San Francisco tenant protection laws are stronger than Japan's. Likewise, going off [2], in Google translate, a Japanese landlord can increase your rent as long as they are increasing it to "market rate."
  - tkgally 6y ago
    Interesting. I didn’t know about the laws in San Francisco. Then maybe better explanations for people feeling “less stressed about getting kicked out of their homes” in Japan than in San Francisco are the more flexible housing supply, made possible in part by looser zoning regulations; more stable long-term housing prices, resulting from a combination of demographic and macroeconomic factors; and different cultural assumptions about proper interpersonal relations, including between landlord and tenant.
bnralt 6y ago
I wonder how much of a role transportation, safety, and schooling play into it. I've heard that Japan does all three quite well. I know some high rent areas in the U.S. that have relatively cheap rental prices not too far away, but many people won't even consider them because they're lacking in the three things mentioned above.

blackrock 6y ago

> because there is actually sufficient supply Exactly! Build more housing! Homes should be made for living. Not for investments or speculation. Why is the American public and the politicians so clueless about this? Well, because they are the landlords that benefits from all the price increases. They are the foxes guarding the hen house.

hannasanarion 6y ago
I think the more crucial part of the japanese example is > housing is generally a depreciating asset Housing cannot simultaneously be affordable and a good investment. In America, policymakers tend to prioritize real estate value over the ability of housing to actually house people. Homebuyers expect and demand that the values of their properties, including the rents that they generate, be constantly increasing. Supply and demand doesn't push prices down, because housing is inelastic: when you hike prices outside of people's means, they don't stop buying, they find more means, either by taking on more roommates, more jobs, or by making big cuts elsewhere in their budgets. Before the housing market was commodified and public housing looted by private interests in the 70s and 80s, spending 20% of your income on housing was considered absurdly high. Now 50% is the norm, because landlords and speculators keep raising prices and you can't not live in a house.
- fomine3 6y ago
  I'm very curious why US housing price is still increasing despite of US' car culture and big land area.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - andromeduck 6y ago
    public transportation sucks and traffic doesn't scale well with single occupancy vehicles - at some point spending 6 hours per day in traffic just isn't worth it
  - hannasanarion 6y ago
    Private cars are a horribly inefficient way to move people. A lane of traffic can move about 1500 people per hour at most (traffic at full speed, every car totally full), in real life its more like 800 people per hour. Compare that to 10,000-25,000 people per hour on a commuter train. By focusing development around cars, American cities actually decrease the practical size of the metropolitan area.
    - blackrock 6y ago
      The problem is sitting next to an idiot on the train that refuses to wear a mask.
- MaxBarraclough 6y ago
  > when you hike prices outside of people's means, they don't stop buying, they find more means, either by taking on more roommates, more jobs, or by making big cuts elsewhere in their budgets. Don't forget debt. I think there's a comparison to be drawn with healthcare costs here.
maxsilver 6y ago
> Why is the American public and the politicians so clueless about (supply vs demand) We're not clueless, but supply and demand is mostly meaningless in housing in the US. (I get that much of Hacker News is San Francisco based, and the Bay Area is an outlier in that it has an actual shortage of units). But except for a few very-specific cities (like SF), in most US cities the price of housing has absolutely nothing to do with supply nor demand. US housing prices are set by federal monetary policy, used as investment vehicles for banking and private equity, with some money laundering and scams thrown in, to create good-looking artificial economic indicators. Most housing can not depreciate in the US. This is intentional, explicit, federal policy. (Guaranteed and backed up by the full faith of the federal government). Macro-level depreciation at the urban level simply isn't allowed for any reason. (Seriously, this is not an exaggeration. We poisioned an entire cities drinking water and despite demand being practically zero, that city still hasn't lost meaningful values on it's housing). You can't build faster than the feds can raise prices, and even if you could, most cities are not short on houses. (Half of the top 40 major US cities literally already have more empty/abandoned homes than they have homeless people) If we pulled all that political monetary policy out of housing, then sure, our housing could be based on actual supply and demand (Japan-style). But politically, that will never happen in the US. Most Americans can't articulate all of the above clearly. But any American that has ever bought a house knows damn well that the price they paid is entirely political and has no basis in reality, and most Americans know that the primary way housing prices go up is through new construction, so most Americans aren't going to be swayed by an argument to "just build even more" > Homes should be made for living. Not for investments or speculation. I agree, but generally speaking, America does not. All housing is investment here. Unless your wealthy enough to DIY it yourself, houses literally don't get built here unless it's a "profitable investment". (Banks often won't even finance things that lower average housing costs) This is also why YIMBYism doesnt work here. The problem is too much investment in housing already. But new construction is assessed high, and all housing everywhere is assessed based on the closest comparable, so it becomes an infinite feedback loop until the bubble pops. You can't solve that with even more investment, the investment is causing the prices to rise in the first place!
fomine3 6y ago
Build more housing... then another problems pop up. Now nursery school shortage is serious problem in around Tokyo because housing regulation isn't planned well. Extremely crowded station/train is another example.
- presentation 6y ago
  Tiny problems in comparison to the straight up human rights violations happening in the USA every day, IMO.

tkgally 6y ago

I agree with your points about Japan in general. However, one major reason “people seem much less stressed about getting kicked out of their homes here” is that there are strong laws protecting tenants from eviction [0, 1]. Landlords also cannot raise rents unilaterally [2]. My own anecdatum comes from about twenty-five years ago. I was living with my family in Tokyo in a rental condominium owned by a large corporation. The corporation tried to get us to move out so that they could sell the unit. Our children were small and I worked at home, and it would have been a major hassle to move then. I looked into the law and learned that the landlord needs a “proper reason” (正当事由 seitō jiyū, [3]) to evict a tenant and that wanting to sell the property does not count as such. I told the company’s representative that we knew our rights, and they stopped bothering us. [0] https://www.generalunion.org/laws-and-rights/1700-so-you-re-being-evicted https://www.generalunion.org/laws-and-rights/1700-so-you-re-... [1] https://japanpropertycentral.com/2017/11/landlords-ending-a-lease-is-not-easy/ https://japanpropertycentral.com/2017/11/landlords-ending-a-... [2] In Japanese: https://www.homes.co.jp/cont/rent/rent_00378/ https://www.homes.co.jp/cont/rent/rent_00378/ [3] In Japanese: https://www.mlit.go.jp/common/001017685.pdf https://www.mlit.go.jp/common/001017685.pdf

nemothekid 6y ago
Going off Google translate, Japan doesn't seem to be any more strict than San Francisco. To evict a "no-fault" tenant in San Francisco, it must be done in a court and the tenant gets financial recompense (and like Japan, wanting to sell the unit is not a valid reason to evict). I'd argue that San Francisco tenant protection laws are stronger than Japan's. Likewise, going off [2], in Google translate, a Japanese landlord can increase your rent as long as they are increasing it to "market rate."
- tkgally 6y ago
  Interesting. I didn’t know about the laws in San Francisco. Then maybe better explanations for people feeling “less stressed about getting kicked out of their homes” in Japan than in San Francisco are the more flexible housing supply, made possible in part by looser zoning regulations; more stable long-term housing prices, resulting from a combination of demographic and macroeconomic factors; and different cultural assumptions about proper interpersonal relations, including between landlord and tenant.

bnralt 6y ago

I wonder how much of a role transportation, safety, and schooling play into it. I've heard that Japan does all three quite well. I know some high rent areas in the U.S. that have relatively cheap rental prices not too far away, but many people won't even consider them because they're lacking in the three things mentioned above.